Thorough reformation of the Lords now essential?

Some of us have looked askance regularly at Blair's dog's dinner of a change to the House of Lords, - at the enormous patronage involved, and "jobs for the boys" whose safe seats are wanted. Recently we have had the spectacle of large numbers of peers created and appointed to cabinet or near-cabinet status. The most glaring example has been the elevation of Mandelson to a position of real power.

We are now to have regularly a minister for business who makes speeches in the Lords, which are then parroted in the Commons by a junior and then, in this case, attacked by Kenneth Clarke with objections either heard by Mandelson in the public gallery or retailed back to him by some minion.

Recently we have had the case of possible corruption by four members of the Lords, who were then defended on the grounds that they were not paid. (I am not quite sure what the £300 attendance allowance is for, given that there are also generous expense allowances, but I hope that they pay tax on the former. One avid attending peer has apparently has apparently cost us £400,000 in a few years.)

If, I emphasise "if", peers have been paid to alter legislation in favour of outside sponsors, then they obviously have more power than is often admitted. The Lords have also defeated government bills on a number of occasions.

My growing conviction that the absurdity of patronage is incompatible with democracy, that important ministers in the Lords and removed from personal questioning is unacceptable and that the lack of suitable rules for disciplining peers cannot persist, means that reform is overdue.

Of course, disciplinary rules and procedures could be devised over some months, but it is surely time to complete the reform which Blair started. I have no doubt that if the USA can exist with a president, House of Representatives and a Senate, there is no reason why we could not have a parallel structure with PM/cabinet effectively a president, and then Commons and Lords.

The objection often made that to make the upper chamber democratically elected would give it power and simultaneously reduce the power of PM and Commons, is a nonsense. There ought to be on occasions a correcting power to that of the executive reinforced by government whips.